Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Sep 1;15(9):e0238398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238398

Transversal sero-epidemiological study of Bordetella pertussis in Tehran, Iran

Gaelle Noel 1,#, Farzad Badmasti 2,#, Vajihe S Nikbin 2, Seyed M Zahraei 3, Yoann Madec 4, David Tavel 4, Mohand Aït-Ahmed 5, Nicole Guiso 1, Fereshteh Shahcheraghi 2,, Fabien Taieb 1,4,‡,*
Editor: Abdallah M Samy6
PMCID: PMC7462262  PMID: 32870922

Abstract

Objectives

Pertussis remains endemic despite high vaccine coverage in infants and toddlers. Pertussis vaccines confer protection but immunity wanes overtime and boosters are needed in a lifetime. Iran, eligible for the Expanded Program on Immunization that includes the primary immunization, implemented two additional booster doses using a whole-cell vaccine (wPV) at 18 months-old and about 6 years-old. Duration of protection induced by the wPVs currently in use and their impact as pre-school booster are not well documented. This study aimed at assessing vaccination compliance and at estimating the duration of protection conferred by vaccination with wPV in children aged < 15 years in Tehran, Iran.

Methods

Detailed information on vaccination history and capillary blood samples were obtained from 1047 children aged 3–15 years who completed the 3 doses-primary pertussis immunization, in Tehran. Anti-pertussis toxin IgG levels were quantified by ELISA.

Results

Compliance was very high with 93.3% of children who received the three primary and 1st booster doses in a timely manner. Timeliness of the 2nd booster was lower (63.3%). Rate of seropositive samples continuously and significantly increased from 1–2 to 5–6 years after 1st booster attaining 30.4% of children exhibiting serological sign of recent contact with B. pertussis. Second booster dating back 1 or 2 years was associated with high antibody titers, which significantly decreased within 3 years from injection. Among children who received 2nd booster injection more than 2 years before serum analysis, seroprevalence of pertussis infection was 8.4% and seropositivity rate was higher from the 10 years-old group.

Conclusion

Seropositivity in children aged 6–7 years with no 2nd booster supports the need for a vaccination at that age. Adolescent booster may also be considered.

Introduction

Pertussis, also known as whooping cough, is a highly contagious disease that remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in infants worldwide despite vaccination [1]. The etiological agent, Bordetella pertussis, is a Gram-negative human-restricted bacterial pathogen that is transmitted through droplets and causes a prolonged respiratory disease that is frequently fatal in young infants.

In an effort to fight the disease, whole-cell pertussis vaccines (wPVs), made of chemically or heat-inactivated bacterium, were developed and vaccination was introduced in the 1950s and largely distributed to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) since the 1970-80s. Generalized vaccination has greatly reduced pertussis burden [1, 2] but has also modified pertussis epidemiology. Adolescents and adults became new reservoirs for a disease formerly believed to be pediatric, threatening newborns too young to have completed their primary immunization [1, 3]. This was mainly due to waning immunity after vaccination with wPV, as well as after natural infection and several studies reported a duration of protection induced by primary vaccination and one booster of 5 to 10 years [46]. Today most high-income countries have replaced wPVs with less reactogenic acellular pertussis vaccines (aPVs) for primary immunization and booster doses, while many LMICs still use the less expensive wPVs provided through the EPI, often limiting their vaccination program to primary immunization in infants [1, 7].

wPVs may suffer from disparities in production processes [1], and studies performed on wPVs available in 1980s and 1990s showed large heterogeneity associated to highly variable immunogenicity and efficacy [8]. Importantly, information is scarce about more recently produced wPVs currently used in LMICs.

B. pertussis is still endemic and most recent estimates indicate that around 24 million cases and 160 000 deaths from pertussis still occurred in children younger than 5 years of age in 2014 around the world, despite high, although <90%, vaccine coverage [2, 9]. However, surveillance of the disease is rarely implemented in LMIC and these numbers are probably underestimated [7].

Iranian pertussis immunization schedule, that partially relies on EPI, includes 3 primary doses (at 2, 4 and 6 months of age) and two booster injections at 18 months and in pre-school children using a trivalent diphtheria tetanus whole-cell pertussis combined vaccine (DTwP) [10]. Pertussis vaccines locally manufactured by Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute were replaced by vaccines licensed by the Serum Institute of India (SII) in 2007, and since 2014, the trivalent diphtheria tetanus wP combined vaccine (DTwP) is restricted for boosters while the pentavalent diphtheria tetanus wP Haemophilus influenzae hepatitis B combined vaccine (DTwP-Hib-HepB) is given for primary immunization. Immunogenicity and duration of protection induced by these specific vaccines is unknown [1113]. In addition to quality of the vaccine, completion (i.e. number of doses) and compliance (i.e. age at injection) with recommended immunization schedule impact vaccine effectiveness. In Iran, information about compliance with Iranian immunization schedule is poor, vaccine coverage is reported to be high with 1st and 3rd dose coverage over 95% since 1995, which is above global coverage estimated to be around 85% for a 3-dose course of a pertussis-containing vaccine in 2017 [14]. Despite high coverage and delivery of booster doses, circulation of B. pertussis has been documented in Iran, mainly in children but also in adolescents and adults [15, 16]. Sero-surveillance data are scarce, and laboratory diagnosis aren’t always obtained using the recommended technology. Accurate epidemiological data are needed to monitor and adapt current vaccination strategies.

Evaluating serological anti-pertussis toxin (PT) immunoglobulin-G (IgG) levels is a straightforward and cost-effective way of estimating occurrence of infection by B. pertussis [1720]. This study aimed at applying this method to evaluate circulation of B. pertussis and duration of protection induced by wPV in children 3–15 years of age in Tehran, and at assessing compliance with national recommendations.

Methods

Study population and design

The study was implemented in 15 centers in Tehran, Iran (9 kindergartens, 4 primary schools, 1 medium school and 1 medium/high school), between December 2016 and February 2017. In order to recruit in centers representative of Tehran schools, a random selection was performed from the list of schools provided by the Ministry of Education in 6 municipality districts also randomly selected among the 22 existing in this province. Enrollment criteria were: being aged 3 to 15 years, having completed pertussis primary immunization (3 first injections) and owning detailed information about history of pertussis immunization. Three year old was chosen as lower limit of age for enrollment in the study to include children being at least a year away from 1st pertussis booster dose. Eight age groups were defined (3&4, 5&6, 7&8, 9, 10, 11, 12&13 and 14&15 years old). Date of birth, gender, pertussis immunization history obtained from record booklet from the child or from a copy from school (information required at school entry), and serology results were collected, filled in paper questionnaires and recorded in a computerized database. No information on recent history of pertussis or respiratory illness was collected.

Pertussis immunization schedule analysis

Iranian pertussis vaccination schedule includes a 3 doses-primary immunization at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, and 2 booster doses. Recommended age for 1st booster dose is 18 months, recommended age for 2nd booster dose has varied over time and was 4–6 years before 2009, 6 years in 2009–2013 and is 5–6 years since 2014. Compliance with vaccination schedule was analyzed based on the national recommendations at time of vaccination, exact definition used was the following: having received the 1st dose at 2 months +/- 14 days, the 2nd and 3rd doses at 4 to 10 weeks interval from the previous dose, the 1st booster dose at 18 months– 2 / + 8 weeks and the 2nd booster dose at age [46], 6, or [5, 6] years when given in 2008, in 2009–2013, or in 2014–2016, respectively [21].

Blood sample collection

One capillary blood sample (200–400 μl) was collected for each participant by a nurse using lancet needle (BD Sentry 23G, Becton Dickinson). Tubes were inverted several times, stored at 15–25°C and sent within 6 hours to the bacteriology laboratory at the Institut Pasteur of Iran in Tehran. At the laboratory, blood was immediately spun, and serum was stored at -20°C for later analysis. Quantitative assessment of anti-PT IgG was performed using a purified PT-containing Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit (EUROIMMUN; reference EI 2050-G) [22], and the World Health Organization (WHO) reference serum available from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC). Results were expressed in International Units (IU)/ml. Lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) was defined as 5 IU/ml.

Serology analysis

Anti-PT IgG levels rapidly wane overtime and cut-off level of 40 IU/mL was used to identify seropositive individuals either following an immunization or, in absence of recent immunization, having had a contact with circulating bacteria sometime in the past year. Anti-PT IgG levels ≥100 IU/mL were also represented and, in the absence of recent vaccination, were interpreted as a sign of infection sometime in the past 6 months [17, 23, 24]. Duration of protection was evaluated by comparing proportions of positive individuals between i) age groups and ii) groups defined based on timespan since last vaccination among children who received either 4 or 5 injections.

Statistical analysis

For description of continuous variables, the median, interquartile range (IQR), minimum and maximum were estimated. For categorical variables, percentages were estimated, and comparisons were conducted using the two-sided chi2 or fisher exact test depending on the sample size. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with anti-PT IgG ≥ 40 IU/ml. Statistical analyses were carried out using Stata 15 software. Differences were considered significant at p< 0.05.

Ethical consideration and safety of participants

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Pasteur Institute of Iran. Informed written consent was obtained from all parents/legal guardians, and oral consent form was obtained from children aged over 7. Only participants who agreed to participate were included in the study. Authorization for data processing has been obtained from French legal authority (Commission Nationale Informatique et Liberté [CNIL]), and pseudonymization of names was performed assigning a code specific to the study to each participant.

Results

Study population description

A total of 1047 children were enrolled, and the number of children ranged from 96 to 176 in the different age groups (S1 Table). Enrolment took place over a 3-month period, and started in kindergartens enrolling youngest individuals and ended in high schools with the oldest children. In addition, boys and girls tended to be enrolled from distinct sites due to unisex schools. Thus, age had a strong collinearity with site, month of inclusion and gender.

All children received the 1st pertussis booster dose scheduled at 18 months of age. The 2nd pertussis booster had been received by 56/142 (39.4%) and 174/176 (98.9%) children belonging to the 5&6 and 7&8 age group, respectively, and all older children.

Compliance with Iranian pertussis immunization schedule

Compliance with recommended age or interval

Overall median age at each of the injections matched with Iranian pertussis immunization schedule (Table 1).

Table 1. Age description at pertussis vaccine injections.
  Primary immunization doses Boosters
1st (m) 2nd (m) 3rd (m) 1st (m) 2nd (y)
Recommended age 2.00 4.00 6.00 18.00 [4–6] if <2009
6 if 2009–2013
[5–6] if >2013
median age 2.00 4.00 6.03 18.00 6.14
25%–75% 1.97–2.03 3.97–4.07 5.97–6.07 17.93–18.10 5.92–6.58
10%–90% 1.93–2.09 3.90–4.13 5.90–6.16 17.80–18.23 5.75–7.23
min—max 1.57–38.20 3.02–40.07 4.92–41.93 8.13–54.23 5.09–7.52
N 1047 1047 1047 1047 815

Values are presented in months (m) or years (y).

Compliance with recommended age or intervals were analyzed for each dose (Fig 1). Regarding the primary immunization, no child received the 1st injection too early and only 15/1047 (1.4%) received it too late as compared to Iranian standards. Nearly all of those who had received the 1st dose on time also received the 2nd and 3rd dose on time (1004/1047; 95.9%) and were therefore compliant with full course of primary immunization. Among those who were not timely vaccinated sometime in their primary immunization course (n = 43), only a minority of individuals received a 2nd or 3rd dose too early (1/43) or too late (27/43). All children with a delayed 1st or 2nd dose received the subsequent doses within correct intervals as national standards.

Fig 1. Compliance with Iranian pertussis immunization schedule.

Fig 1

Numbers (n) and proportions (%) of children who received early (light grey), on time (white) or late (dark grey) their pertussis vaccine dose as compared to Iranian recommendations are shown for each injection. Respect to intervals in between 1st and 2nd, and 2nd and 3rd are shown with respect to compliance with 1st and 2nd dose, respectively. Days (d); weeks (w); years (y).

Regarding compliance with 1st booster, 1000/1047 (95.5%) children have received the 1st booster at the recommended age. Of note, among those who were late at 1st booster dose (n = 21), 16 (76.2%) respected a 12 months interval from the last primary immunization dose.

A total of 517/817 (63.3%) children received the second booster dose at the recommended age. Eligible children where those already vaccinated with that dose (n = 815) and unvaccinated children aged ≥ 7 (n = 2).

Compliance with entire immunization schedule

Overall, 702/1047 (67.1%) children were vaccinated in a timely manner (including 4 or 5 injections based on the child age), and 977/1047 (93.3%) children received the 3 primary doses and 1st booster in a timely manner.

Serological analysis

Description of anti-PT IgG levels

Anti-PT IgG titers were determined for 1010 serum samples. Other 37/1047 samples were not tested due to low volume or hemolysis. Proportion of children with high IgG titers was significantly higher in 5&6 and 7&8 age groups, corresponding to recommended age for receiving 2nd booster dose.

Anti PT IgG level in individuals who did not received the 2nd booster

Among the study population tested for anti-PT IgG, 226/1010 (22.4%) children were not vaccinated with 2nd booster. Their anti-PT IgG levels were evaluated with respect to timespan since 1st booster dose. Shortest timespan since 1st booster injection was 17.9 months. Level of antibodies was associated to and increased with the delay since 1st booster injection categorized in year (Fig 2 and Table 2). Overall, time since 1st booster was significantly associated with higher anti-PT IgG titers (global p = 0,007). Rate of seropositive children among those who received the 1st booster dose 5 to 6 years before blood testing was significantly higher as compared to those who received their booster within 1 to 2 years, 7/23 (30.4%) and 1/42 (2.4%), respectively (Table 2; p = 0.009). These individuals were 6.5–7.0 years old. Antibody levels were not associated to compliance of these individuals with the primary and 1st booster dose schedule (Table 2).

Fig 2. Distribution of anti-PT IgG levels by timespan since 1st booster among individuals who received 4 injections.

Fig 2

Timespans were categorized by year.

Table 2. Distribution of positive individuals by timespan since 1st booster dose among individuals who received 4 injections.
    N anti-PT IgG ≥ 40 IU/ml n (%) OR (95% CI) p global p
Timespan from 1st booster (years) [1–2[ 42 1 (2.4) 1 - 0.007
[2–3[ 73 5 (6.9) 3.0 (0.3–26.7) 0.322
[3–4[ 47 6 (12.8) 6.0 (0.7–52.1) 0.104
[4–5[ 41 6 (14.6) 7.0 (0.8–61.2) 0.077
[5–6 [ 23 7 (30.4) 17.9 (2.0–157.7) 0.009
Compliance (Iranian standards) no 10 1 (10.0) 1 - na
yes 216 24 (11.1) 1.1 (0.1–9.3) 0.913
  Total 226 25 (11.1)      

Anti-PT IgG levels related to 2nd booster

A total of 784/1010 (77.6%) children had already received the 2nd booster dose. The proportion of individuals with anti-PT IgG ≥ 40 IU/ml was high among those who received the 2nd booster within a year and within 1–2 years (27.7% and 32.5%, respectively), and significantly decreased among children vaccinated since 2–3 years (11.1%) (S2 Table).

Anti-PT IgG levels related to infection post-2nd booster

To distinguish infection- from vaccine-induced anti-PT IgG, analysis of proportion of children with anti-PT IgG ≥ 40 IU/ml was performed only in children whose 2nd booster injection was dating back >2 years (n = 621). Proportions of children were calculated based on age groups and antibody level cut-offs (Fig 3). Infection-related seroprevalence (anti-PT IgG ≥ 40 IU/ml) was 8.4% in this population. Children aged 9 years showed the lowest proportion of anti-PT IgG (2.4%) (Table 3). Proportion of seropositive individuals was higher in 7&8 (15.3%; p = 0.004), 10 (10.0%; p = 0.023), 11 (10.5%; p = 0.018) and 14&15 (10.0%; p = 0.026) age groups. Compliance with Iranian pertussis immunization standard was not associated to serology (Table 3).

Fig 3. Distribution of anti-PT IgG levels by age groups among fully vaccinated individuals since >2 years.

Fig 3

Table 3. Risk factors associated to positive serology among fully vaccinated individuals since > 2 years.
N anti-PT IgG ≥ 40 IU/ml n (%) OR (95% CI) p global p
Age group (years) 7&8 59 9 (15.3) 7.3 (1.9–27.9) 0.004 0.035
9 124 3 (2.4) 1 -
10 120 12 (10.0) 4.5 (1.2–16.3) 0.023
11 124 13 (10.5) 4.7 (1.3–17.0) 0.018
12&13 94 5 (5.3) 2.3 (0.5–9.7) 0.271
14&15 100 10 (10.0) 4.5 (1.2–16.8) 0.026
Compliance (Iranian standards) no 313 23 (8.3) 1  - na
yes 308 26 (8.4) 1.0 (0.6–1.8) 0.988
Total 621 52 (8.4)

Discussion

This study aimed at evaluating age-specific distributions of anti-PT IgG in Iranian children for whom few data exist. This is the first sero-epidemiological study in children who received a pertussis vaccination that includes a booster injection, using a whole cell vaccine, at the age of 6 years.

Completion (i.e. having received all recommended doses) and compliance (i.e. having received recommended doses in a timely manner) are critical for maximizing vaccination effectiveness [1]. The delivery of 3 primary doses of wPV in children less than 12 months of age has been continuously increasing in Iran since EPI implementation in 1984 [21, 25]. The Iranian national monitoring system estimate coverage to be 95% since 1995 for dose 1 and 3, and coverage with the 1st booster dose to be 98–99% since 2014 [25, 26]. To our knowledge, no data report coverage of the 2nd booster dose yet. Our study does not give insight into proportion of children having incomplete primary immunization since receiving these 3 doses was part of our inclusion criteria. However, we observed that all participants received the 1st booster dose and 99.8% (1045/1047) of them were fully vaccinated by the age of 7.5 years. These data tend to show that once a child starts its pertussis immunization program, he/she successfully receives all five recommended doses. Our study also showed that 95.9% of the children, timely received the 3 primary doses, and compliance at 1st and 2nd booster injections was 95.5% and 63.3%, respectively. However, it should be noted that 2nd booster vaccination in Iran is performed at school entry which could explain short delays based on the month of the year the child was born.

Compliance observed herein was substantially higher that what has been reported so far in Iran. A study performed on 3610 children living in suburbs of five Iranian megalopolises, reported that 34.9%, 25.0%, 17.7% and 2.7% of children were vaccinated on time with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd injections, and 1st booster, respectively; not vaccinated children represented <5% for each dose [27]. Data from another province than Tehran indicated that about 55% of children were timely vaccinated with the injection 1, 2 or 3, with a coverage greater than 99% [28]. Compliance definition used in these studies was slightly different to the one used herein, but, when applied to our data, did not significantly impact the result. However, this study may represent highly compliant sub-population as only children having completed the primary immunization, living in Tehran, attending school and owning their vaccination record booklet were considered. Also, socio-economic and spatial disparities are known as determinants of vaccine coverage and compliance and may contribute in part to result diversity across these studies [27, 29, 30].

Duration of protection induced by the SII vaccine distributed in Iran is unknown and may differ from wPVs from other manufacturers [31]. Detection of high antibody titers at distance from vaccination has been used to indirectly identify a contact with B. pertussis bacteria [1, 24].

Among subjects who received primary vaccinations and one booster only, a significant increase in sero-positivity rate was evidenced at 5–6 years from 1st booster injection, evidencing waning immunity since last vaccination. The duration of protection conferred by 3 doses-primary and a 18 months-booster vaccination with Sanofi Pasteur wPV used in France in the past was defined as 9 years [6, 32]. However, data from Russia and The Gambia, using different wPV, evidenced increasing risk of infection at around 6 years old in vaccinated individuals receiving the same number of doses, such as herein, underlining the importance of 6 years old-booster in controlling infections in children aged 5 to 7, as recommended by WHO [1, 18, 20].

We observed higher anti-PT IgG titers in children who received the 2nd booster within 2 years. Anti-PT IgG thereafter rapidly decreased to reach significantly lower levels in individuals who were 3 years from their last vaccination. An important pitfall in pertussis serology is that it is impossible to differentiate vaccine induced anti-PT IgG titers to those induced by natural infection. However, our results suggest substantial immunogenicity of the vaccine and an antibody decay from vaccination over a 2 years period. Although variability exists, previous studies evaluating other wPVs used for primary and one 18 months-booster injection suggest that immune responses to PT after vaccination are negligible or reach low levels within a year [3337]. In Iran, an additional wPV booster at 6 years of age, rarely implemented in LMIC, is performed and humoral response to a 2nd booster is unknown. The 2 years-period from vaccination to antibody decay observed herein may indicate that this second booster promotes higher persistence of anti-PT IgG. Monitoring of anti-PT IgG kinetic following 6 years old-wPV booster injection would be suitable.

Among children who received two vaccine boosters, serological sign of contact with B. pertussis in the past year was the lowest in the 9 years old age group and was higher thereafter ranging from 2.4% to 15.3% (Fig 3 and Table 3). These observations may indicate greater susceptibility to pertussis in adolescents. Overall number of seropositive individuals was low but demonstrated the presence of B. pertussis circulation among these children. During the study period, Iranian CDC reported a total of 239 and 271 suspected cases in Tehran in 2016 and 2017, respectively (unpublished data). Age information was not available, however among 347 patients for who nasopharyngeal samples were collected during the period 2004–2008 in 18 different provinces for performing pertussis diagnosis, 82% were <6 years old and only 43 were older patients for whom only 4 were confirmed positive by PCR [16]. This may reflect, at least in part, the difficulty in identifying suspected cases in older children and adults that may be caused by the milder pertussis syndrome in infected individuals of that age.

The implementation of an additional booster in adolescents may further contribute to reduce pertussis incidence in vaccinated population and lead to a shift in age of susceptible individuals. However, its impact on decreasing morbidity and mortality in infants < 1 year old, the most vulnerable population, might be limited. For this purpose, maternal immunization and the “cocooning” are two alternative strategies being recommended in countries using the wPV [1, 38]. Whatever the strategy, the availability of an aPV is required and its implementation feasibility would need to be assessed.

Our study has several limitations. First, most of the recruited children were vaccinated in a timely manner and probably do not reflect general Iranian children. However, this study shows that vaccination program is effective and that 2nd booster vaccination is appropriate, regardless of compliance. Second, no information was gathered regarding pertussis-related symptoms that children may have experienced in the past year. This would have been interesting as occurrence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals is greatly discussed [39]. However, questioning about history of clinical symptoms suffers from memory biases in such study design and may lead to wrong interpretations.

Conclusions

This study shows that B. pertussis is circulating among children and adolescents in Tehran, despite very good compliance with the national immunization schedule observed herein. Anti-PT humoral immune response induced by the SII wPV waned over time after the 18-months booster injection and support WHO recommendations in implementing a booster in pre-school children [1]. Furthermore, an additional booster injection could be needed to reduce the circulation of B. pertussis in adolescents.

Supporting information

S1 Table. General description of the study population stratified by age category.

Values are shown as n (%).

(TIF)

S2 Table. Distribution of anti-PT IgG levels by timespan since 2nd booster dose among fully vaccinated individuals.

Anti-PT IgG levels are shown using <LLOQ, [5–40[, [40–100 [and ≥100 IU/ml cut-offs, and the ≥40 IU/ml cut-off alone to include all anti-PT positive individuals. Anti-PT IgG titers are shown as n (%).

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank all the children and parents who kindly agreed to participate to this study, and staff from educational institutions. We also thank Ms. Sandra Corre who participated to laboratory staff training, study implementation and monitoring.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.WHO. Pertussis vaccines: WHO position paper Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2015;. August 2015;90:433–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Yeung KHT, Duclos P, Nelson EAS, Hutubessy RCW. An update of the global burden of pertussis in children younger than 5 years: a modelling study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2017;17(9):974–80. 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30390-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zepp F, Heininger U, Mertsola J, Bernatowska E, Guiso N, Roord J, et al. Rationale for pertussis booster vaccination throughout life in Europe. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2011;11(7):557–70. 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70007-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Guiso N, de La Rocque F, Njamkepo E, Lécuyer A, Levy C, Romain O, et al. Pertussis Surveillance in Private Pediatric Practices, France, 2002–2006. Emerging Infectious Disease journal. 2008;14(7):1159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pebody RG, Gay NJ, Giammanco A, Baron S, Schellekens J, Tischer A, et al. The seroepidemiology of Bordetella pertussis infection in Western Europe. Epidemiology and infection. 2005;133(1):159–71. 10.1017/s0950268804003012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Grimprel E, Bégué P, Anjak I, Njamkepo E, François P, Guiso N. Long-term human serum antibody responses after immunization with whole-cell pertussis vaccine in France. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology. 1996;3(1):93–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Guiso N, Taieb F. Pertussis in Low and Medium Income Countries: A Pragmatic Approach. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 2019(0065–2598 (Print)). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.WHO, editor. Immunological basis for immunization: Pertussis (2017 update)November 2017.
  • 9.von Koenig CHW, Guiso N. Global burden of pertussis: signs of hope but need for accurate data. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2017;17(9):889–90. 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30357-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Moradi-Lakeh M, Esteghamati A. National Immunization Program in Iran: whys and why nots. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics. 2013;9(1):112–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pourakbari B, Moradi B, Mirzaee F, Mahmoudi S, Teymuri M, Mamishi S. Seroprevalence of antibodies to diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis among healthy adolescents and adults in Iran. Roumanian archives of microbiology and immunology. 2013;72(4):250–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shamsizadeh A, Nikfar R, Yusefi H, Abbasi-Montazeri E, Cheraghian B. Seroprevalence of pertussis antibodies in 6-17-year-old students in Ahvaz, south-west Islamic Republic of Iran. Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de sante de la Mediterranee orientale = al-Majallah al-sihhiyah li-sharq al-mutawassit. 2014;20(10):623–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.WHO. Laboratory manual for the diagnosis of whooping cough caused by Bordetella pertussis/Bordetella parapertussis. 2014
  • 14.WHO. Global and Regional Immunization Profile. WHO vaccine-preventable disease monitoring system. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sadeghpour Heravi F, Nikbin VS, Nakhost Lotfi M, Badiri P, Jannesar Ahmadi N, Zahraei SM, et al. Strain variation and antigenic divergence among Bordetella pertussis circulating strains isolated from patients in Iran. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2018;37(10):1893–900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sedaghat M, Nakhost Lotfi M, Talebi M, Saifi M, Pourshafie MR. Status of Pertussis in Iran. Jundishapur Journal of Microbiology. 2014;7(11):e12421 10.5812/jjm.12421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Guiso N, Berbers G, Fry NK, He Q, Riffelmann M, Wirsing von König CH, et al. What to do and what not to do in serological diagnosis of pertussis: recommendations from EU reference laboratories. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases: official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology. 2011;30(3):307–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kurova N, Timofeeva E, Guiso N, Macina D. A cross-sectional study of Bordetella pertussis seroprevalence and estimated duration of vaccine protection against pertussis in St. Petersburg, Russia. Vaccine. 2018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Barkoff A-M, Gröndahl-Yli-Hannuksela K, He Q. Seroprevalence studies of pertussis: what have we learned from different immunized populations. Pathogens and Disease. 2015;73(7):ftv050–ftv. 10.1093/femspd/ftv050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Scott S, van der Sande M, Faye-Joof T, Mendy M, Sanneh B, Barry Jallow F, et al. Seroprevalence of pertussis in the Gambia: evidence for continued circulation of bordetella pertussis despite high vaccination rates. The Pediatric infectious disease journal. 2015;34(4):333–8. 10.1097/INF.0000000000000576 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Arefi Z, Kazemi Z, Shaahmadi Z, Mahmoudi S, Shaahmadi F. The Trend of the Extended Program of Immunization (EPI) in Iran from the Beginning (1984) to 2013. International Journal of Pediatrics. 2015;3(4.1):717–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Riffelmann M, Thiel K, Schmetz J, Wirsing von Koenig CH. Performance of Commercial Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Detection of Antibodies to Bordetella pertussis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2010;48(12):4459–63. 10.1128/JCM.01371-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wirsing von Konig CH, Gounis D, Laukamp S, Bogaerts H, Schmitt HJ. Evaluation of a single-sample serological technique for diagnosing pertussis in unvaccinated children. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1999;18(5):341–5. 10.1007/pl00015016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.de Melker HE, Versteegh FG, Conyn-Van Spaendonck MA, Elvers LH, Berbers GA, van Der Zee A, et al. Specificity and sensitivity of high levels of immunoglobulin G antibodies against pertussis toxin in a single serum sample for diagnosis of infection with Bordetella pertussis. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2000;38(2):800–6. 10.1128/JCM.38.2.800-806.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.WHO. WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2018 global summary 2018 [updated 22-Oct-2018. Available from: http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=IRN&commit=OK#.
  • 26.Sedighi I, Karimi A, Amanati A. Old Disease and New Challenges: Major Obstacles of Current Strategies in the Prevention of Pertussis. Iran J Pediatr. 2016;26(4):e5514 10.5812/ijp.5514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rejali M, Mohammadbeigi A, Mokhtari M, Zahraei SM, Eshrati B. Timing and delay in children vaccination; evaluation of expanded program of immunization in outskirt of Iranian cities. JRHS. 2015;15(1):54–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Poorolajal J, Khazaei S, Kousehlou Z, Bathaei S, Zahiri A. Delayed Vaccination and Related Predictors among Infants. Iranian journal of public health. 2012;41(10):65–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tauil MdC, Sato APS, Waldman EA. Factors associated with incomplete or delayed vaccination across countries: A systematic review. Vaccine. 2016;34(24):2635–43. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Khan J, Shil A, Prakash R. Exploring the spatial heterogeneity in different doses of vaccination coverage in India. PloS one. 2018;13(11):e0207209–e. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jefferson T, Rudin M, DiPietrantonj C. Systematic review of the effects of pertussis vaccines in children. Vaccine. 2003;21(17):2003–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Guiso N, Levy C, Romain O, Guillot S, Werner A, Rondeau MC, et al. Whooping cough surveillance in France in pediatric private practice in 2006–2015. Vaccine. 2017;35(45):6083–8. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Berbers GAM, van de Wetering MSE, van Gageldonk PGM, Schellekens JFP, Versteegh FGA, Teunis PFM. A novel method for evaluating natural and vaccine induced serological responses to Bordetella pertussis antigens. Vaccine. 2013;31(36):3732–8. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.05.073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gustafsson L, Hallander HO, Olin P, Reizenstein E, Storsaeter J. A Controlled Trial of a Two-Component Acellular, a Five-Component Acellular, and a Whole-Cell Pertussis Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine. 1996;334(6):349–56. 10.1056/NEJM199602083340602 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Giuliano M, Mastrantonio P, Giammanco A, Piscitelli A, Salmaso S, Wassilak SGF. Antibody responses and persistence in the two years after immunization with two acellular vaccines and one whole-cell vaccine against pertussis. The Journal of Pediatrics. 1998;132(6):983–8. 10.1016/s0022-3476(98)70395-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Storsaeter J, Hallander HO, Gustafsson L, Olin P. Levels of anti-pertussis antibodies related to protection after household exposure to Bordetella pertussis. Vaccine. 1998;16(20):1907–16. 10.1016/s0264-410x(98)00227-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Edwards KM, Berbers GAM. Immune Responses to Pertussis Vaccines and Disease. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2014;209(suppl_1):S10–S5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Campbell H, Gupta S, Dolan GP, Kapadia SJ, Kumar Singh A, Andrews N, et al. Review of vaccination in pregnancy to prevent pertussis in early infancy. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2018;67(10):1426–56. 10.1099/jmm.0.000829 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Althouse BM, Scarpino SV. Asymptomatic transmission and the resurgence of Bordetella pertussis. BMC medicine. 2015;13:146–146. 10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Abdallah M Samy

16 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-08084

Transversal sero-epidemiological study of Bordetella pertussis in Tehran, Iran

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. NOEL,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Transversal sero-epidemiological study of Bordetella pertussis in Tehran, Iran" (#PONE-D-20-08084) for review by PLOS ONE. As with all papers submitted to the journal, your manuscript was fully evaluated by academic editor (myself) and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important health topic, but they raised substantial concerns about the paper that must be addressed before this manuscript can be accurately assessed for meeting the PLOS ONE criteria. Therefore, if you feel these issues can be adequately addressed, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We can’t, of course, promise publication at that time.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 30 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abdallah M. Samy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please see the attached document. In short, I would suggest a simplified analysis of the data and clearer presentation of results. Although I have said yes to the appropriate use of statistics, I recommend some changes...

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Rudzani Muloiwa

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 1;15(9):e0238398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238398.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Aug 2020

Dear Editor-in-chief,

We are grateful to the editor and reviewer for carefully reviewing our manuscript entitled “Transversal sero-epidemiological study of Bordetella pertussis in Tehran, Iran”, and for the constructive comments. We have implemented the comments and suggestions and wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript that will fulfill the PLOS ONE criteria.

Changes in the initial version of the manuscript are either highlighted for added sentences or strikethrough for deleted sentences in the “track changes” version. Below, we also provide a response for each comment (in blue), explaining how we have addressed it.

We look forward to hearing from you on the outcome of this second assessment.

Best regards,

On behalf of the co-authors

Fabien Taieb, MD, MPH

• General comment

This is an important study that deals with two important and related issues on pertussis vaccination. It reports on vaccine coverage and timeliness of receiving vaccine doses, as well as adds to our knowledge of immune responses to a whole cell pertussis vaccine in a low and middle-income country setting with time from booster doses. The authors must be commended for taking on this work.

I have given specific comments that if considered I believe would improve the final manuscript. Although these seem numerous, they are all very related.

Authors’ Response:

We are grateful for the careful reading of our manuscript, and we very much appreciate your suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving the manuscript.

• Abstract

While I appreciate the difficulty involved in writing abstracts with limits on word count, I still believe that the results section must reflect the results themselves, not just p-values in the absence of data on which the hypotheses were tested. In the presence of word limits, the authors must decide what the most important findings to reflect in the abstract are. In this case the authors still have more words to play with.

Authors’ Response:

We thank you for the advice, the abstract has been edited to make full use of the length and to better reflect with the result data.

• Introduction

Line 49. I suggest changing ‘developing world’ to low and middle income countries (LMICs) as done lower done

Line 56 ‘aPV’s’ first mention, write in full

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your attention, these changes have been implemented.

• Methods

Line 10. Two minor issues. Is there a rationale for these groupings?

Authors’ Response:

Yes, there is. A total of 100 children were recruited by age group. The classification of age groups was performed so as to finely determine the most adequate age group for a booster vaccination, thus increasing statistical power among these expected age groups. Also, three years old was chosen as lower limit of age for enrollment in the study in order to include children being at least a year away from 1st pertussis booster dose scheduled at 18 months.

Secondly, the structure of the age separation has the potential of creating an ambiguity. E.g. 3-4, 5-6 means that there is a missing ‘4-5’ in the middle. May be easily resolved with 3&4, 5&6 which closes an ‘apparent’ one year gap between the groups.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the suggestion, age group writing has been modified throughout the manuscript (eg. from “3-4” to “3&4”) to eliminate any ambiguity.

Line 135. ‘in case of contact with bacteria’ should this not better read, “in the absence of recent vaccination”…?

Line 141. I think the authors meant to say ‘continuous’ rather than ‘quantitative’?

Line 142. ‘Categorical’ rather than qualitative??

Authors’ Response:

We are thankful for these suggestions, which have all been implemented in the Method section.

Line 145. Although one can choose any p value cut off, by convention a p value ‘less than’ (<) 0.05 is typically chosen rather than “equal or less than”, and when chosen, it is two sided which I am assuming is what was used here for Fisher and Chi

Authors’ Response:

The reviewer is correct, and method section related to statistical analysis was edited as suggested. We specified the use of “two-sided chi2 or fisher exact test”, and we edited the p value cut-off for considering significance from “p≤0.05” to “p<0.05”.

• Results

158. Is there a reason for this collinearity to exist between the mentioned variables?? They don’t on the surface of it seem to be potentially collinear…

Authors’ Response:

This collinearity is a due to enrollment strategy and school organization in Iran. “Enrolment took place over a 3-month period, and started in kindergartens enrolling youngest individuals and ended in high schools with the oldest children. In addition, boys and girls tended to be enrolled from distinct sites due to unisex schools. Thus, age had a strong collinearity with site, month of inclusion and gender”. The quoted argument has been added to the text to help the reader understands the origin of these collinearities.

• Table 2.

§ Although I eventually figured Table 2 out, it is not an easy table and carries a significant risk of causing confusion. Unless the authors can defend it, I would suggest using a (flow) diagram instead to show this… Of course, the fact that I figured it out in the end means it can be understood, just not very intuitive. I only started getting better clarity when I drew it for myself as below….

Authors’ Response:

We agree Table 2 is not an easy Table to understand. The proposed flowchart model indeed improves the understanding, thank you for drawing the example. Table 2 has been updated that way, making it Figure 1. Thus, Figure and Table numbers have been updated throughout the manuscript.

Lines 206-207. Is the timeliness of the second booster dose based on time interval or on expected age to receive the dose?

Authors’ Response:

Timeliness of second booster is based on expected age. Text has been edited to remove ambiguity as the following: “A total of 517/817 (63.3%) children received the second booster dose at the recommended age.”

Lines 222, 228, etc. May I suggest consistency in the use of n (%) as the authors have been

doing throughout the document.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your attention, these changes have been implemented throughout the document.

Line 227. The findings being compared should be shown and not just the p value (I am assuming this is coming from a logistic model in Table 3?). Again, I would suggest showing the data for line 230 instead of stating a p value in the absence of the compared data.

Authors’ Response:

Yes, p value that was reported line 257 referred to the logistic regression in Table 3. Text has been edited adding information on the data themselves and specifying the table to refer to, to guide the reader, as following: “Rate of seropositive children among those who received the 1st booster dose 5 to 6 years before blood testing was significantly higher as compared to those who received their booster within 1 to 2 years, 7/23 (30.4%) and 1/42 (2.4%), respectively (Table 3: p=0.009). “

Regarding line 230, and based on PLOSONE editor feedback and data sharing requirements, p value related to the association of seropositivity and compliance reported as “data not shown” was deleted. This information was implemented in Table 3, and text now refers to Table 3 in which p value can be found.

• Table 3 (now reported as Table 2 in the revised manuscript)

§ It is not clear what the p value of 0.007 means and how one interprets it (especially when next to another one of 0.104 and the OR CI that breaches the null value of 1). Is the p-value of 0.007 for the overall fit of the model or for the trend?

Authors’ Response:

We acknowledge that the p value=0.007 was not clearly defined in the table and not explained in the text. It represents the global p value, thus demonstrating that overall the time since 1st booster had an impact on anti-PT IgG titers. Table 3 has been updated to read “global p” and the value has been moved upward in order not to look associated to a specific age category. Also, the text was revised to report this data explanation, as following: “Overall, time since 1st booster was significantly associated with higher anti-PT IgG titers (global p=0,007)”.

§ I would suggest getting rid of effect measures (odd ratios) altogether as I doubt their usefulness especially given such poor precision of estimates (wide CI). Including this only serves to undermine the observed trend of increase in proportion of cases with

higher titres.

Authors’ Response:

Although we agree that estimates have poor precision, we would prefer keeping the effect measures as they give information. However, in case you firmly believe it is better to get rid of that information, we will delete it.

In addition, we updated effect measures values by getting rid of the 2nd decimal, thus simplifying and homogenizing with Table 4.

Lines 244/245. Already made the point about p-values and shown data. Applies to whole Section

Authors’ Response:

Text has been edited by deleting p values, and by reporting the data themselves and citing the related Table.

• Table 4. (now reported as Table 3 in the revised manuscript)

§ I am not sure what has been adjusted for in the logistic model… This is crucial because the adjustment is supposed to lead to a conclusion of age cohort being somehow independently associated with infection… It creates for a very difficult explanation (which is not available in the discussion) that in my understanding is external to the available data (such as the local epidemiology of pertussis)

Authors’ Response:

The only adjustment we were able to make was for the timeliness of vaccination as recommended by Iranian standards. However, in univariate analysis, this variable was not associated with seropositivity (p=0.988), and the adjustement in multivariate analysis did not substantially affect seropositivity results by age groups. We thought multivariate analysis data were useful, but it may indeed bring misunderstanding. Given that there is no association between timeliness and seropositivy, we decided to getting rid of multivariate analysis in Table 4 to ease the reading and to show similar format for Tables 3 and 4. In addition, to homogenize fully Tables 3 and 4, global p value and total number of children and seropositivity rate were added in Table 4.

§ Apart from age 9 having the lowest prevalence, is there any other rationale for making this the baseline?

Authors’ Response:

Our rationale for making age 9 the baseline was that the denominator of the first age group (7&8 years old), chosen by default, was significantly reduced (from n=165 to n=59) due to the exclusion of children whom last vaccination dated back <2 years. This led to reducing the statistical power for all the comparisons and the precision of the estimates. Then the upcoming age group (9 years old), which also included the highest number of children, was defined as baseline.

§ Is this Table necessary or as a minimum, is the search for association shown here indicated and meaningful? Would a simple description not suffice and the limitations to analyzing this noted in the discussion??

Authors’ Response:

We think that Table 4 brings additional and useful information such as seropositivity estimates, significance of association etc., which cannot be found in Figure 2, and we would prefer keeping it in the manuscript. However, the table has been revised to make it smoother (please refer to previous comment).

• Discussion

Lines 302/302. Are the authors suggesting that increased titres as a marker of recent infection is also a proxy for waned immunity? How would the titres of someone with intact immunity responding to an acute infection differ from those of someone with waned immunity?

Authors’ Response:

We understand very well this comment. We did not mean that the response of someone with intact immunity differ from those with someone with waned immunity. We edited the sentence according to this very good comment, as the following: “Detection of high antibody titers at distance from vaccination has been used to indirectly identify a contact with B. pertussis bacteria.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: NOEL_Response-to-reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Abdallah M Samy

17 Aug 2020

Transversal sero-epidemiological study of Bordetella pertussis in Tehran, Iran

PONE-D-20-08084R1

Dear Dr. NOEL,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Abdallah M. Samy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Abdallah M Samy

24 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-08084R1

Transversal sero-epidemiological study of Bordetella pertussis in Tehran, Iran

Dear Dr. NOEL:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Abdallah M. Samy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. General description of the study population stratified by age category.

    Values are shown as n (%).

    (TIF)

    S2 Table. Distribution of anti-PT IgG levels by timespan since 2nd booster dose among fully vaccinated individuals.

    Anti-PT IgG levels are shown using <LLOQ, [5–40[, [40–100 [and ≥100 IU/ml cut-offs, and the ≥40 IU/ml cut-off alone to include all anti-PT positive individuals. Anti-PT IgG titers are shown as n (%).

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: NOEL_Response-to-reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES